Combining Experts' Causal Judgments

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.10180v1
• Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 16:41:07 GMT
• Title: Combining Experts' Causal Judgments
• Abstract summary: We consider how experts' causal judgments can be combined in order to determine the most effective intervention. We define a notion of two causal models being emphcompatible, and show how compatible causal models can be merged. We illustrate our approach on a number of real-life examples.
• Score: 15.169168801732505
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Consider a policymaker who wants to decide which intervention to perform in order to change a currently undesirable situation. The policymaker has at her disposal a team of experts, each with their own understanding of the causal dependencies between different factors contributing to the outcome. The policymaker has varying degrees of confidence in the experts' opinions. She wants to combine their opinions in order to decide on the most effective intervention. We formally define the notion of an effective intervention, and then consider how experts' causal judgments can be combined in order to determine the most effective intervention. We define a notion of two causal models being \emph{compatible}, and show how compatible causal models can be merged. We then use it as the basis for combining experts' causal judgments. We also provide a definition of decomposition for causal models to cater for cases when models are incompatible. We illustrate our approach on a number of real-life examples.

Related papers

• Implementing Causal Perception: Competing SCMs and Situated Fairness [0.0]
  Causal perception occurs when agents with competing Structural Causal Models infer different probability distributions.<n>This work provides the first implementation of the causal perception framework of lvarez and Ruggieri (2025)<n>We show how causal perception affects accuracy and fairness in a multi-expert decision setting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-04T16:48:19Z)
• Feasible strategies for conflict resolution within intuitionistic fuzzy preference-based conflict situations [14.046056867216285]
  We introduce an intuitionistic fuzzy preference-based conflict situation that captures agents' attitudes towards issue pairs with finer granularity than that afforded by classical preference-based models.<n>We construct three-way conflict analysis models for trisecting the set of agent pairs, the agent set, and the issue set.<n>We present adjustment mechanism-based feasible strategies that simultaneously account for both adjustment magnitudes and conflict degrees.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-03T11:30:34Z)
• Canonical Representations of Markovian Structural Causal Models: A Framework for Counterfactual Reasoning [0.7106986689736826]
  Counterfactual reasoning aims at answering contrary-to-fact questions like Would have Alice recovered had she taken aspirin?''<n>We propose an alternative approach to structural causal models to represent counterfactuals compatible with a given causal graphical model.<n>We present a normalization procedure to disentangle the (arbitrary and unfalsifiable) counterfactual choice from the (typically testable) interventional constraints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-22T09:13:02Z)
• Characterising Interventions in Causal Games [1.2289361708127877]
  Causal games are probabilistic graphical models that enable causal queries to be answered in multi-agent settings. We demonstrate applications to the design of safe AI systems by considering causal mechanism design and commitment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T16:55:07Z)
• Causal Influence in Federated Edge Inference [34.487472866247586]
  In this paper, we consider a setting where heterogeneous agents with connectivity are performing inference using unlabeled streaming data. In order to overcome the uncertainty, agents cooperate with each other by exchanging their local inferences with and through a fusion center. Various scenarios reflecting different agent participation patterns and fusion center policies are investigated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-02T13:06:50Z)
• Subjective Causality [14.440599230549443]
  We represent causality using causal models (also called structural equations models) We show that it is possible to understand and identify a decision maker's subjective causal judgements by observing her preferences over interventions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-17T11:36:38Z)
• Online Decision Mediation [72.80902932543474]
  Consider learning a decision support assistant to serve as an intermediary between (oracle) expert behavior and (imperfect) human behavior. In clinical diagnosis, fully-autonomous machine behavior is often beyond ethical affordances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-28T05:59:43Z)
• A Semantic Approach to Decidability in Epistemic Planning (Extended Version) [72.77805489645604]
  We use a novel semantic approach to achieve decidability. Specifically, we augment the logic of knowledge S5$_n$ and with an interaction axiom called (knowledge) commutativity. We prove that our framework admits a finitary non-fixpoint characterization of common knowledge, which is of independent interest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-28T11:26:26Z)
• Fairness and robustness in anti-causal prediction [73.693135253335]
  Robustness to distribution shift and fairness have independently emerged as two important desiderata required of machine learning models. While these two desiderata seem related, the connection between them is often unclear in practice. By taking this perspective, we draw explicit connections between a common fairness criterion - separation - and a common notion of robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-20T02:41:17Z)
• Counterfactual Inference of Second Opinions [13.93477033094828]
  Automated decision support systems that are able to infer second opinions from experts can potentially facilitate a more efficient allocation of resources. This paper looks at the design of this type of support systems from the perspective of counterfactual inference. Experiments on both synthetic and real data show that our model can be used to infer second opinions more accurately than its non-causal counterpart.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-16T14:40:41Z)
• Empirical Estimates on Hand Manipulation are Recoverable: A Step Towards Individualized and Explainable Robotic Support in Everyday Activities [80.37857025201036]
  Key challenge for robotic systems is to figure out the behavior of another agent. Processing correct inferences is especially challenging when (confounding) factors are not controlled experimentally. We propose equipping robots with the necessary tools to conduct observational studies on people.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-27T22:15:56Z)
• End-to-End Learning and Intervention in Games [60.41921763076017]
  We provide a unified framework for learning and intervention in games. We propose two approaches, respectively based on explicit and implicit differentiation. The analytical results are validated using several real-world problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-26T18:39:32Z)
• Learning "What-if" Explanations for Sequential Decision-Making [92.8311073739295]
  Building interpretable parameterizations of real-world decision-making on the basis of demonstrated behavior is essential. We propose learning explanations of expert decisions by modeling their reward function in terms of preferences with respect to "what if" outcomes. We highlight the effectiveness of our batch, counterfactual inverse reinforcement learning approach in recovering accurate and interpretable descriptions of behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-02T14:24:17Z)
• Combining the Causal Judgments of Experts with Possibly Different Focus Areas [15.648061765081259]
  In many real-world settings, a decision-maker must combine information provided by different experts in order to decide on an effective policy. Alrajeh, Chockler, and Halpern showed how to combine causal models that are compatible in the sense that, for variables that appear in both models, the experts agree on the causal structure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-20T15:28:08Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.